Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X" (Re: SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds)

Ted Lemon <> Mon, 11 November 2019 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46731200CE for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:01:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ec952IpkWEZL for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E701200DB for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:01:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t8so15216445qtc.6 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:01:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RlnLJNfaPagg94WtErdm99TRAAG3uVZSsIwY2kYgRyo=; b=l0AB5g0QMTWtbGgUu7n1ygBJLty6OWkKLkRYWRbGMZNjhkW+/uPAIvOvwKTeVxv+3a +SU4RNf+gm2Rr+us0hcMe87Mk/OG8+Z8KT5GiP8JpT3VBdah403QuAh0TVBTBxCGFGYf peyQ8spUnJi+al9zyVGipg74dq7OnlW8eb+O5XXUdLY3HU/gqsjBVWl5W/dGsGgHVXxY 2YyfZ5GeOOlaJJkHgFCm0HQj66Cdkk29Bk89aJPMR67BaNvUz/Of+uebbMdZremYXsmG NjK/vWtdBoC+Lwjs5tH5yUQ0ryrDJW1djOFNajZ2lwgnzlYbkRCs4GhWGGGtCZHPuQQj OTxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=RlnLJNfaPagg94WtErdm99TRAAG3uVZSsIwY2kYgRyo=; b=rT+utX56Wb3GYCOhFCjIH8ULSBf1TAkkVlAY9MTB8cEvONsXwa4tpMH/Ne5VbqdzNY pfvjzL6WKuRY8cyTjNRy1UJqdip5l3Bkqbe4ubVeV+5stCXcXWXn/XAEETvfzEeM6o7j dgOmg8DWUoyW4UODEQvPOUvomhRJb6ZsL/ifZx7KRo6g1eIqCrl+dtTeVK8aophCzLjF BqtCB1rezkU7yNDCJMgFDJG/fZ7uZx0AAYSvmH9lB6f/UjHFr6hFJS9As8+uE7s67EUp 3NoBRVGJ97VPUk9UkwNJA3Csks05L6XVVD9LlLR+bURHsZ1+uY5W4YvtxoCbD3c+ET0/ BzuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU8NEjWYfqILVcxaEzd7Yr3SZbSU5aAFkexxNwgUbng+QiqfXm0 wyp1imnxgpXownATKDfM6nEdgLxEN4JfyQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy03bbV2NkoEhnPN+pQb7BnYreQ2u2SNUrTF/bsIBQud1OWpbAXj2cdBO7Vt435QxZkRShiKg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7111:: with SMTP id z17mr24878421qto.199.1573470088342; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:e0ba:2180:fcde:58d3? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:e0ba:2180:fcde:58d3]) by with ESMTPSA id q17sm9615176qtq.58.2019. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-D81597CD-65BC-4154-B245-B89B94F93223
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:01:26 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Philip Homburg <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17B84)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X" (Re: SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:01:33 -0000

On Nov 11, 2019, at 3:47 AM, Philip Homburg <> wrote:
> In your letter dated Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:30:31 +0100 you wrote:
>> why would we have to delay deployment?
> So the ISP delays rolling out IPv6 until either the problem is fixed in
> IPv6 or, less likely, the ISP has a chance to re-engineer their setup to
> avoid flash renumbering.

The ISP has to install a DHCPv6 server in order to do an IPv6 deployment.  We’ve already heard from one of the main vendors of DHCPv6 servers that their server behaves correctly and does not do flash renumbering.   The two DHCPv6 servers that I have worked on don’t either.  So why is the ISP going to have to delay?  The one time I was asked to help an ISP to set up DHCPv6 in a way that would allow frequent renumbering, it was a major engineering effort (which we wound up not doing).   The ISP would have to go out of their way to not support stable prefixes.

So where is the impediment to deployment?